Participation of Developing Countries in a Climate Change Convention Protocol, Brett Simpson (Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2002)
World population information: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html
World Population Prospects: (pp 5 and 6) http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf
World Population Policies 2007: (p 7) http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2007/Publication_introduction.pdf
United Nations Population Fund State of World Population 2005 report: http://www.unfpa.org/
Reproductive Health: A Measure of Equity: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch4/index.htm
Population momentum and the demand on land and water resources:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1691987&blobtype=pdf
The impact of continued population growth: http://upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/08/14/the_impact_of_continued_population_growth/2198/
The shadow that looms over our planet:
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2502target=_blank
Population, Development and Poverty Reduction: http://www.populationandsustainability.org/papers/LSseminar.pdf
U.S. should fund global family planning, care: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/OPINION/80916034/1049/OPINION
Rudd ‘picking fight with churches’ on abortion aid ban: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264270.htm
Foreign aid merely fosters poverty: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21866969-5007146,00.html
Letter from Brian Harradine to the British Medical Journal 1994 Jan 1;308(6920):64. http://www.popline.org/docs/1119/094866.html
Copenhagen ‘most important meeting since WWII’ – Stern: http://www.environmental-finance.com/onlinews/0911cpe.html

I’d be interested to see a copy of your presentation, “The Stern report and the economics of genocide” for the Crisis Forum: Climate Change and Violence workshop in November, when/if you make it publicly available.

Sounds a bit grim though…

Does the Crisis Forum discuss the impact of the increasing global population?

Population increase is going to be the main driver of emissions and environmental damage in the future. The UN has warned that the global population could rise to 12 billion by 2050 if family planning is not increased.
Ref: POPULATION: UN Predicts 12 Billion if Family Planning Falters: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43156

That’s heading towards doubling our current population of 6.7 billion. If we’re facing problems now, how can the environment survive the impact of relentless population increase?

While population numbers are fairly stable in the developed world (with the exception of the US where immigration is boosting population numbers – and Australia by the sound of things in the Garnaut report…), they are increasing dramatically in the developing world with the following factors contributing to this growth:

1. Women in developing countries, which often have traditional values which result in the subordination of women, have less opportunity to develop autonomy, including control of their fertility. They also have limited access to education. This must change. In developed countries, where women are closer to achieving gender equality and autonomy, population numbers have stabilised. Some people think this population stabilisation is a matter for concern. I would suggest it is a matter for celebration. All countries should be focused on achieving a sustainable population and should plan their economies and infrastructure accordingly. (I appreciate these are complex issues…but Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Paul Ehrlich, Club of Rome, and James Lovelock etc were right.)

2. At least 200 million women still do not have access to a range of effective and affordable family planning services, and demand for these services is expected to increase by 40 per cent in the next 15 years. Meanwhile, funding for family planning has been declining in recent years. Lack of access to family planning results in some 76 million unintended pregnancies every year in the developing world alone. Each year, 19 million abortions are carried out under unsanitary or medically unsound conditions.

3. Due to controversial “population control/coercion” policies in the past, a focus on “reproductive rights” rather than “population control” has evolved. However, we now need a new policy of “reproductive responsibility”.

4. Religions such as Islam and Catholicism are reluctant to endorse contraceptive use. This must change.

5. The religious Right in the US and Australia have impeded family planning funding in developing countries. This must change.

6. Some people / groups are eager to demonise developed countries and punish them for their over-consumption. This is fair enough. But they must not continue to ignore the phenomenal population increase in developing countries which will be the major source of future emissions and environmental damage. Developing countries’ population increase is part of the problem. It’s time to face the facts and get some balance on this issue.

7. Discussion of population numbers has been seen to be “politically incorrect”, a taboo subject, that “dare not speak its name” – but it has to be considered for the environment and for poverty reduction.

All these factors have conspired to produce a problem which could have devastating consequences for the environment, particularly for those developing countries which will suffer the direct consequences of their overpopulation (eg problems due to deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, food shortages, water availability etc, etc).

This problem has been ignored for far too long. It’s time to consider the issue of population increase objectively. It’s way past time actually…

All the points noted above need to be discussed in relation to the next climate change/environment agreement. Otherwise it’s just another waste of time…

(Note: List of references follows in separate post, probably in the “spaminator”.)

[1] The need to solve the climate problem faster than we cause it and have a measured plan to that end, and

*
[2] as Garnaut says in his latest ['Targets and Trajectories'], “The important thing is that any proposals that do not ‘add up’ to a defined global outcome be quickly rejected.”

*

So any ‘deals’ brokered need to be a function of that coherent strategy as at all levels we will pay an increasingly unearble price for organing too little too late.

*

The structured ‘flexibility’ that Peter argues bears on the questions of how, rather than whether, to use C&C to draw parties together internationally within a coherent and meaningful set of rates.

*
My impression is that Ross Garnaut and his team understand that and speak to that. I see that he and his team are challenged here about the rates he highlights being too permissive and I agree this challenge needs to be made; the danger of too little too late is endemic – see: – http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe

*

But I see with some disappointment that elsewhere Climate Action Network Australia are ticking Garnaut off about C&C use per se: -
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/CANAviews%20on%20SuppGarnautReview_Sept5.pdf

*
Perhaps it is worth raising the challenge to CAN and asking how they demonstrate that it is possible to keep within 450 ppmv, i.e. nearly zero emissions globally by 2050/60 [see animation above and note CANA quote IPCC-AR4 & Martin Parry] while also defending all the distributional assumptions about QELROS setting and yet ensuring that their proposals do ‘add up’ to the strategically defined global i.e 450 ppmv [emissions path integral from now to zero weighed as carbon equals about 350 GTC].

*
Of course it is as Garnaut says ‘a diabolical problem’. My reading of his sense of strategy – as an *economist* and probably like all of us, out of his depth – is that he understands clearly the need to distinguish between ‘diversity’ and ‘disspipation’.

*
I am glad that he brings that understanding to bear on the international negotiations. The analysis brought to bear on him here on this list is constructive and will only strengthen his position.

I don’t think that the Professor’s targets and trajectories suggested in the “Targets and Trajectories” report are the correct solution, but I think that a better solution would be that:

1.We argue for an international agreement based on some form of contraction and convergence.
2.We are flexible with respect to the convergence date, this will require that Australia would be prepared to accept less emission allocations by 2020; the Garnaut Climate Change Review could facilitate this my modelling contraction and convergence for earlier convergence dates.
3.We do not initiate bargaining with a conditional offer based on 550 ppm and instead initiate bargaining with a conditional offer based on 450 ppm, that is flexible with respect to the convergence date.
4.We bind ourselves to a low target by making various promises to third parties that increase the penalty for us if we have to accept a target of 550 or higher, greatly strengthening our bargaining position.
5.We encourage other countries to engage in similar tactics – if a critical mass of countries do this then victory is much more likely.
6.We make use of any bargaining trick that is likely to work, possibly including threats.

I believe it is a given that Australian emissions must at least level off in the very near future (let alone begin a descent). Is there no low hanging fruit for the picking other than a few million dollars for the deployment some politically palatable renewables as well as geothermal and CCS research?

It would be advantageous to get a jump-start on what I think is an obvious outcome of these reports – cut until it hurts, and then cut some more.

The idea that you can somehow quarantine politics completely out of Garnaut’s assessment is a nonsense.

I had a think about this after Andrew McK’s comment, and I reflected on whether what I’d said was equivalent to what I’d heard said of scientists urging climate action – that is, that they had exceeded their brief in going beyond presentation of the science to urge action that could readily be said to have a political dimension.

The difference is that scientists are acting directly on the evidence, much as public health physicians are justified in urging public health measures based on the overwhelming evidence that smoking causes cancer.

What I’m saying about Garnaut is that his pronouncements on the likelihood or otherwise of an international agreement go beyond his economic expertise in a way that scientists might exceed theirs if they attempted a full economic analysis of the steps they proposed based on the science. That’s Garnaut’s department.

Garnaut’s advice needs to be clearly calibrated to the likely impacts revealed by the science – on which he need not pronounce, but clearly reference. He also needs to advise on potential economic challenges, including the mechanics of regulatory regimes etc. But the deal-making is not his department. He might be there in the wings with the scientists to field questions where they fall within particular areas of expertise, but the deal is for Rudd and Co. to broker.

Essentially, he would be saying that if the government opted for a target of x% reductions by year y, the accepted science indicates z impacts are likely, and here are the economic measures required and the economic issues that need to be resolved.

He’s done more than that in signalling the likelihood of a poor international outcome, and while I believe his heart is in the right place, he has also let the government off the hook by flagging failure in advance. Rudd has an out. His advice is that it’s fruitless pursuing a strong deal, so let’s have a weak one instead.

I should add here that a strong approach that falls short of fully effective measures might well result in a better deal than that in Garnaut’s ’550 world’ scenario, not rule out the prospect of any deal at all. It doesn’t have to be ‘ideal or no deal’. But if you signal a weak position in advance, where is that likely to get you?

The Rudd Government has to take responsibility for making the deal, or failing to do so, not outsource that to an adviser, as I think might be happening with Garnaut’s advance warning of failure. The ‘heat’ must be on Rudd, and that, too, will augur well for a red-hot effort from our PM.

Finally, it is impossible to quarantine politics from these matters, but I hope what I’ve said here shows why I think Garnaut’s approach has had the wrong emphasis.The heat must be on the Government, or it will be on us.

Another key point is that a bad global deal is probably a better outcome for Australia and the world than no deal at all. It may be a “political” opinion, but it is a vital point, and a topic on which an economist does have special expertise with which he can opine.